MHB Can a Natural Number Satisfy n ≡ 1 (mod p) for All Primes in a Large Set?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bibubo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Class Numbers
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether a natural number can satisfy the condition n ≡ 1 (mod p) for all primes in a large set of consecutive primes. The original claim suggests that for sufficiently large h, no such natural number n exists. However, a counterexample is provided, demonstrating that n can be expressed as the product of the primes plus one, which satisfies the condition. It is clarified that the primes do not need to be consecutive for this to hold true. The conclusion is that the initial claim is incorrect.
Bibubo
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Let $\left\{ p_{1},p_{2},\dots,p_{h}\right\}$ a set of consecutive prime numbers. I want to show that, if $h$ is large enough, then doesn't exists a natural number $n$ such that $$n\equiv1\textrm{ mod }p_{i},\,\forall i=1,\dots,h.$$
I think is true but I have no idea how to prove it. Am I wrong?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your claim is unfortunately false. Try $n = p_1 p_2 \cdots p_h + 1$ (and the primes don't need to be consecutive either).
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top